Pages

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is neversettled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

GAIA's James Lovelock turns his back on global warming

James Lovelock turning his back.

James Lovelock was the re-inventor of Tim Flannery's self-confessed religion - "Gaia." James Lovelock was also one of the fore-runners in the promotion of the man-made CO2 emissions global warming hypothesis.

Lovelock previously turned his back on "Gaia." Now, he is also turning his back on the alarmist hypothesis.

During his interview, Lovelock pointed out that Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers" as an example of “alarmist” forecasts of the future. TCS blog has previously reported on Dr Wes Allen's "The Weather Makers Re-examined" - a critical appraisal of Tom's tome.

“Jim Lovelock has no university, no research institute, no students. His
almost unparalleled influence in environmental science is based instead
on a particular way of seeing things,” Oliver Morton, of the journal
Nature wrote in Time.

Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier."

Not one of us are deniers, James!

He
said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in
the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not
well enough understood and could have a key role.

“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.
He
said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its
effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really
happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world
now,” Lovelock said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the
millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has
stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon
dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by
the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so
bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that
time were either faked, or incompetently done.

Fudging the data
in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of
science. I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so
strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have
standards.

Careers have been ended by this affair and the reputation of the
institution [CRU] will go down for a while. It's sad because there are
some good people there. They have to clean their house if they know
people are behaving badly.

On the surveys showing that public trust with climate science is eroding:

I think the public are right. That's why I'm soft on the sceptics. Science has got overblown.

True
to form, the overwhelming majority of press outlets failed to report
the juiciest global-warming gossip of the week — a change of heart on
the issue by one of the world’s most celebrated environmentalists. Also
true to form, the press failed to report the most profound science story
of the week — a startling theory that not only absolves humans of blame
in global warming but sheds light on another taboo subject:
shortcomings in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Unlike
their coverage of the political establishment or the corporate
establishment, journalists will rarely be skeptical of the scientific
establishment. Perhaps these ­unskeptical journalists don’t question
scientists out of a belief that scientists’ pronouncements are free of
the self-interest that taints politicians or corporations. Or perhaps
these journalists, who are themselves rarely scientifically literate,
blindly accept the views of scientific authority figures because they
lack the training to assess rival views. Or perhaps these journalists
fear being subjected to ridicule if they buck politically correct views.
Whatever the reasons for journalistic deference to dogma in science,
the victim is the information-consuming public, which at best is kept in
the dark, at worst is duped.

Facts: Ian Johnston is not a reporter for MSNBC. He is an editor. Onhis Twitter page, he admits as such. He writes: "I am an editor forMSNBC.com, and I like to cover stories about [lists topics he likes,oneof which is environment]." He appears to be a British man. He mighteven have an inside link to Dr Lovelock via school or family or PRtrainging. We'll know more when he tells the truth on how thisnon-story transpired. So far, he's not talking, and he's not answering my emails. Stonewalling again?Two: he interviewed Dr Lovelock by telephone at his home in Cornwall,England, from his news desk in New York. And there was no press conference.

Three: why did this telephone interview take place on that day when in fact there was NO NEWS about LOVELOCK or climate change that would warrant such a big news story?

Answer: Aha, Lovelock's PR people at his publisher in London, or New York, most likely knowIan and in anticipation of Lovelock's new book coming out in 2013, the PR people asked Ian if he would like to interview James Lovelock by telephone person to person in the UK? Of course, Ian took the bait and ran with it. Great story too.Interesting. But why NOW? It seems that the PR people wanted to create a pre-publication BUZZ a good 9 months before publication in order tocreate a waiting readership for the new book. A great PR move. Ian fell for it. Ian did not report why or how the interview came aboutand that is both unethical and unprofessional. But the PR team is happy. And Ian got his scoop. And Dr Lovelock doesn't mind, because heis a great man and he's always good for good quotse. Ian's story rocked. But there's a back story to the MSNBC story we need to know. Now you know it.

It was a PR stunt, a marketing set up, a news gimmick. And MSNBC fell for it.

Lovelock previously said that man-made CO2 emissions cause dangerous runaway global warming. In the interview Lovelock is quoted as saying: “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.”

It is not too difficult to see why James Lovelock backtracked. It is just a wonder that more are not doing so! Remember that these alarmist model predictions were first aired by the UN at the Villach, Austria conference of 1985. We have three decades of independent data to (in)validate their failed predictions. The temperature rise is below the low estimates of 0.2oC/decade.